since when does a politician publicly embracing something guarantee the politician means what s/he says?
>In fact, if you pay attention to
>the South Carolina race, labor issues and trade issues are at the heart of
>the debate between the two candidates. Or on civil rights, to take South
>Carolina again, here is Inez's position on civil rights:
>http://www.inez2004.com/portal/files/phatfile/One%20Pager%20-%20Af-Am.pdf
>
>Some quotes:
>"Inez will work to help create jobs across South Carolina by supporting
>theSmall Business Administration's programs to link minority firms with
>federal contracting, and to make business loans more readily available."
>
>"From 1994, Inez supported removal of the Confederate flag from the
>Statehouse dome."
>
>"Inez would also support an increase in the minimum wage, make college more
>affordable, and work to narrow the health disparities that exist between
>black and white South Carolinians."
>
>So in red-as-hell South Carolina, the Dem candidate is running on
>supporting affirmative action, labor law reform, raising the minimum wage,
>and fighting racism in the health care system.
>
>So that's hardly fighting on "anti-labor" terms.
let's take a good look at the rest of what Inez Tenenbaum is "running on" so we can round out this highly distorted picture of a democrat
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Inez_Tenenbaum.htm#Gun_Control
regarding the war in iraq:
We had justification for going into Iraq and remove Saddam. (Oct 2004)
The Iraqi war is justified even without finding WMD. (Oct 2004)
Units in Iraq should have better equipment. (Oct 2004)
We were right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. (Oct 2004)
Encourage NATO to help rebuild Iraq. (Oct 2004)
regarding gun control: no stance on record immigration: no stance on record on welfare and poverty: no stance on record on govt reform: no stance on record
on education Inez the educator says:
Embraced No Child Left Behind. (Oct 2004) [which is a proven failure]
Create a single set of national achievement standards. (May 2004)
on energy and oil:
Send nuclear waste to Yucca, not to Carolina. (Aug 2004)
on crime:
Death penalty for terrorists and murderers. (Aug 2004)
Crack down on gangs. (Aug 2004)
pro death penalty, pro iraq war, pro sending nuclear waste anywhere but south carolina, no stand at all on other controversial issues, and etc. wouldn't it be nice if nathan newman reported ALL the facts.
> >And your claim that it would take 60 Senators is also DP propaganda:
>"Can't
> >be done, so why try?" If there were a President and a House ready and
>eager
> >to press the point, the Senate would not be able to filibuster it.
>
>We've had that situation repeatedly (1966, 1978, 1994) and the Senate can
>filibuster labor law reform, just as it filibustered civil rights for
>decades, despite having Presidents and a House willing to pass reform. If
>41 Senators can be reelected based on their anti-labor votes, there is
>little a President can do to change their votes. Possibly, he could allow
>other conservative things to pass in exchange for a few votes for labor law
>reform.
possibly? like what for example?
>Back in the 1960s, the GOP offered to allow labor law reform to pass if the
>Dems and unions would allow a constitutional amendment to reverse the "one
>man, one vote" Supreme Court decision. To their credit, the unions said
>screw labor law reform if it meant disenfranchising black and urban voters.
why is this to their credit? this occurred before you were born, nathan newman, but you might check to see if unions in those days had any black or urban members. get your facts straight.
>But short of trading away something else in exchange for labor law reform,
>what short of 60 votes can get labor law reform?
how about people like you stop supporting the democrat party for starters.
> >Meanwhile, I ask this as a real, non-hostile question: Why do you read
>this
> >board? You seem entirely closed to any and all criticism of the DP,
>despite
> >its long record of utter failure at being progressive.
>
>I actually read it less consistently than I once did-- remember I've been
>on this list long before you were from the first day it was created. But
>I'm often not talking to you with my comments; I'm talking to the large
>number of people "lurking" on the list and others who read the archives, so
>that they understand that the rhetorical statements about "the Democratic
>Party" are silly simplifications and misunderstand the real steps needed
>for progressives to win.
you are the republican's best friend, nathan newman. as kerry says of shrub, you offer wrong choices; you take your eyes off reality and offer spin. thanks to the democratic party, which you fatuously claim you can't define, the nation is in a bigger mess today than it was a year ago, four years ago, and so forth. yet you insist on advising people to vote for democrats.
you have no idea what "the real steps needed for progressives to win" are.
>To repeat as always, I don't defend some amorphous non-existent entity
>known as the "Democratic Party" (please send me its address;
It's address is the Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003. Send donations. maybe you could drop bye and tell them they're really in 50, and probably 500 different places at once; they'll be pleased to hear it.
with 50 locations, that would average one per state. each state does have it's own democratic party, right?
please send me my 50 addresses as soon as possible! and 500 when you get them.
>I'll send you
>at least 50 and probably more like 500 additional addresses for where that
>"party" is located, in its quite wide-ranging diversity of power centers).
you've been nailed several times as an apologist for the democratic party on this message board.
>What I defend is the strategy of progressives voting and mobilizing on the
>party line labelled "Democratic" versus wasting energy on third parties
>that can't win at the state legislative level, much less at the federal.
i see you've found a way to weasel out of your typical support for the democratic party, while taking a poke at third parties as a waste of energy because they're not the democrat party. what could be more "independent politics" than third parties?
>I also defend and promote "independent politics" via groups like Americans
>Coming Together, which is run by unions, civil rights and feminist leaders
>and is controlling turnout for this election in most swing states.
what does "controlling turnout" mean?
ACT's purpose is to "defeat George W. Bush and elect progressives up and down the ticket...." please define what a progressive is for me, nathan newman.
> It's
>notably that union folks like Steve Rosenthal
a chronic democrat and advisor to democrats. there are six founders of ACT and yet you can mention only one?
>are directing those hundreds
>of millions of dollars involved in voter mobilization this year NOT John
>Kerry. ACT is taking no orders from Kerry and they control their voter
>lists after the election, not the DNC.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
how much money do you think ACT will have after the election?
R